They DOD did just recently place a order for more M9 to get them over the hump.
I believe the new testing requirements are no plastic poly frame and must be 45 ACP.
Where did you see that?
The Only all metal 45. I can think of that i would think about taking with me to a war would be a P220 SIG but it has no safety so I doubt they will pick that.
If a polymer frame 45 w/ safety was okay then I think M&P 45 w/ safety , Hk45 and FN 45 would be the 3 go to for testing.
A better question would be: “Will there be a contract awarded?” Or even “will there be a RFP issued?”
There are no such things as “testing requirements” in this context. There are Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs). These all have threshold (T) and objective (O) levels attached to them. These are all system requirements.
Where did you hear such a thing? The last List of draft system requirements did not specify no polymer. That’s like saying you want a new air superiority fighter, but no composites allowed. Dumb if true, but I’m highly skeptical of your claims.
Added: August 26, 2005 Modified: September 5, 2006Track Changes
This is an amended synopsis for the government’s requirements for a combat pistol (CP). This program was previously known as the Joint Combat Pistol. The USSOCOM intends to issue a solicitation to obtain commercially available non-developmental item (NDI) CP system, Caliber .45 (ACP). The Program will use full and open competition to fulfill the CP requirement. The CP will be delivered in accordance with specification entitled "Performance Specification Combat Pistol (PS/4081/C05/1415)” to be provided with issuance of the solicitation. The Combat Pistol System consists of: a Caliber .45 pistol and its ancillary equipment including: Magazines (standard and high-capacity); Suppressor Attachment Kit for operation of the pistol with and without sound suppressor; Holster; Magazine Holder (standard and high-capacity); Cleaning Kit; and Operator’s Manual. The contract type will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) issuing Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders. The contract period of performance shall be five (5) years with an option to extend for an additional five (5) years. The Minimum Quantity is 24/ea Engineering Test Units (ETU’s). The estimated maximum quantities are: 50,000/ea combat pistol systems (which includes a .45 caliber CP, 2 standard capacity magazines, operator’s manual and cleaning kit); 50,000/ea Holsters; 200,000/ea Standard Capacity Magazines; 360,000/ea High Capacity Magazines; 50,000/ea Magazine Holders; 15,000/ea Suppressor attachment kits; Provisioning Item Order; associated data; and 3/ea Instructor and Key Personnel (I&KP) Training courses. Transportation shall be F.O.B. Destination. The solicitation will require, free of charge to the government, delivery of 24/ea product samples with any required spare parts support along with a concise written proposal all due on the closing date stated in the solicitation. The 24/ea product samples from the successful offeror may be accepted as the Minimum Quantity. Any subsequent delivery orders for CPs will order between 50/ea and 25,000/ea with a maximum monthly delivery rate of 2,500/ea. Any subsequent orders for the ancillary items will require delivery to commence within 60 days after receipt of order. The product samples and written proposal will be evaluated on a best value basis and the Government will reserve the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror and other than the highest technically rated offeror. Product samples from unsuccessful offerors will be returned to the offerors upon written request to the contracting officer and at the offeror’s expense. The Government cannot guarantee the condition of the product samples after testing. All responsible sources may submit a proposal, which shall be considered by the agency. Notifications, Solicitation, and other communication will be posted via FEDBIZOPS. Questions may be emailed to Contract Specialist, Mr. Pfender at john.pfender@navy.mil.
I am still digging for info
I agree here. I will believe that they are going with a new contract when they actually announce it and place a major order and begin receiving such products. Until then everything else is just noise to me.
I concur
This is Little old but I found it
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=0fceb57b5ad03d9c387b98546ae5edef
It would be nice to know for investors.
The P220 has a half cock safety and a excellent de Cocker (still have my tired P220 from 1983)
How about the new P227 Tac Ops with the Alloy frame
You picked 3 good picks the FNX 45 Tactical most excellent…
2005???
Do you suppose that was from the USMC 1911 thing? It includes Navy POC.
CZ would be a great contender… if they could keep up with production.
JCP died almost 9 years ago, Van Winkle…
That’s stuff from JCP or Special Operations Forces Combat pistol. Older, cancelled program.
From everything I have read they are interested in moving to a larger caliber. Obviously if that includes .40 the range of choices is incredible. I think they would be best served by an HK or FN product given their history of quality and consistency.
Didn’t they just do this not too long ago… which is what spawned the HK45, M&P45 w/safety, among others…?
I’d have to say HK, FN & S&W will be the front runners. Smith teaming up with General Dynamics is a good indication they are serious, they offer all the vague features requested & they do it at a better price point (along with being American).
As far as the OP is concerned, as many pointed out, you’re looking at a dead program. Scrapped, done, finished. USSOCOM did procure a number of HK45CTs, but they’re polymer framed, and they only went to NSW units, as far as I’m aware.
WRT the Modular Handgun System, it’s hard to imagine a more “modular” option than the P320. The “MHS” version that was leaked several months back with mandatory baby poop coloring and what looked like a decent manual safety is going to be hard to compete against, as long as it passes the reliability testing and doesn’t go the way of the P250. To me, the P320’s “build a bear” approach allows units to customize pistols to specific missions, IF NEEDED, and the three “grip module” sizes will likely fit well over 90% of the various hand sizes out there. The ability to caliber swap is going to be another hard-to-trump selling point (we don’t have much ammo sitting around right now that’s NOT 9mm, so initial adoption could be in 9mm until the supply system catches up and a “larger caliber” is widely available)…
But, I’m just an interested observer, and maybe, an end-user IF the program goes through and IF we end up with new handguns in the next couple of years.
Pretty much this. No one cares about the selection being eventually canceled, just like last time we’ll end up with a couple new designs.
Yea, every option out there that ISN’T separate fire control group ala P320 is going to become obsolete imo more quickly than the 1911 did or the Beretta after that. We’re in a rapidly evolving era of micro electronics and an emerging Internet Of Things mentality. By running the P320, when GPS/Electronic control/reporting becomes standard, the P320 can have a frame for that, same with integrated lights in the housing. Next generation mrds, or whatever. When 8mm hyper rounds are developed, the P320 can be ready for it. Optics, grip styles, attachments, calibers all easier with the P320. Nothing out there can be cleaned as easily as the P320, something for some reason some military and police groups care way too much about.
Beretta fielding a default upgrade in an attempt to cancel the competition, and M&P getting in with GD are BIG moves. IMO, M&P has little chance as is (see the constantly evolving M&P, accuracy issues, upgrades everyone makes to stock guns), my thought is that the gun they are planning on submitting is an evolution of the M&P we have not yet seen, hopefully it breaks backwards compatibility in order to fundamentally fix current issues. Glock is the elephant in the room, but counter to the SIG is probably the least modular of any of the entries (well, aside from the Beretta 92 of course).
As long as the gun actually works, I think the P320 is would be the ideal world version that seems to make the most sense… Because of this of course the P320 cannot be selected.
Can a striker-fired pistol meet the minimum primer strike depth required? That’s the reason for the awful DAO pull on the M9. Perhaps new ammunition regs are coming as well.
Reliable ignition is a strong suit of hammer fired guns, and if there is a requirement to be able to ignite hard primers (which realistically there should be…) a hammer fired gun will have an advantage.
I was quite surprised that both my P250 and P320 act so differently given they’re both “DAO” and similar in design. No second-strike capability on the P320…